I have seen there are some issues with 1.3.4 when opening existing 1.3.3.9 docs. Will 1.3.5 be reliable enough to open older 1.3.3.9/10 docs exactly as they would appear in 1.3.5? For me and I suspect others, the bleeds are one of the functions that make 1.3.4 so appealing. I guess my question is should I go ahead with the current stable version or will I find that later versions also won't import the older versions docs exactly as they should?
Stewart Gregory Pittman wrote: > > 1.3.4 will not ever be a "stable" version. Soon, it will be superseded > by 1.3.5, which will also be considered developmental. > While as I understand it technically the next stable version beyond the > 1.3.3.x series will be 1.3.6, this will not be for some time. On a > practical level what is likely to happen is that with time we will see > most of the 1.3.5 bugs taken care of, more users report good results > with it, and the late 1.3.5cvs versions should be unofficially pretty > stable, yet not labeled as such. Then comes the announcement that the > developmental 1.3.5cvs has morphed like a butterfly into 1.3.6. > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Version-1.3.4-for-Windows-XP-tf3859699.html#a10944375 Sent from the Scribus mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
